HB 
771 
.  R81 
1923 


LIBRARY  OF  PRINCETON 


FEB  2  1  2009 


THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


HB771  .R81  1923 

Ryan,  John  Augustine, 
1869-1945. 

Christian  doctrine  of 
property. 


The 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE 


of  PROPERTY 


\  Msgr.  i 


Right  Rev.  Msgr.  John  A.  Ryan,  D.D. 


ILS .WCf-° 


fl 


i 

...  : 


;::»U 


Printed  for  the 

SOCIAL  ACTION  DEPARTMENT 
NATIONAL  CATHOLIC  WELFARE  CONFERENCE 

By 

THE  PAULIST  PRESS 
New  York,  N.  Y. 


p 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE 
OF  PROPERTY 


By 


RIGHT  REV.  MSGR.  JOHN  A.  RYAN,  D.D. 


LIBRARY  OF  PRINCETON 


THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


PRINTED  FOR 

THE  SOCIAL  ACTION  DEPARTMENT 
NATIONAL  CATHOLIC  WELFARE  CONFERENCE 

% 


THE  PAULIST  PRESS 
New  York,  N.  Y. 


Nihil  Obstat: 


Arthur  J.  Scanlan,  S.T.D., 

Censor  Librorum. 


Imprimatur: 


Patrick  Cardinal  Hayes, 

Archbishop  of  New  York. 


New  York,  January  22,  1923. 


COPYRIGHTED 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property1 

By  John  A.  Ryan,  D.D. 


I 

All  the  great  radical  movements  for  industrial  re¬ 
form  involve  the  institution  of  private  property.  So¬ 
cialism  would  abolish  private  ownership  of  the  instru¬ 
ments  of  production;  the  Single  Tax  system  would  sub¬ 
stantially  abolish  private  ownership  of  land.  Public 
ownership  of  such  things  as  railroads,  telegraphs,  and 
municipal  utilities  would  restrict  very  considerably  the 
scope  of  private  ownership,  and  even  such  milder  pro¬ 
posals  as  profit-sharing  and  labor  participation  in  man¬ 
agement  would  cause  a  redistribution  of  the  existing 
powers  and  functions  of  ownership. 

The  relations  between  capital  and  labor  and  the  man¬ 
ner  in  which  the  product  is  distributed  are  what  we  find 
them  today  mainly  because  our  industrial  system  is  based 
upon  a  certain  form  of  private  property.  The  instru¬ 
ments  of  production  are  owned  and  managed  by  private 
individuals  and  organizations.  The  conditions  and  terms 
of  employment  and  the  distribution  of  the  industrial 
product,  are  likewise  determined  by  the  fact  that  capital 
is  private  property,  not  the  property  of  the  State.  Both 
these  matters  are  arranged  by  agreement  between  the 
workers  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  owners  of  capital  on 
the  other.  Hence,  both  capitalist  and  laborer  are  vitally 
interested  in  the  institution  of  private  property.  The 


1  Reprinted  from  the  Quarterly  Bulletin  of  the  Meadville  Theo¬ 
logical  School,  April,  1922. 


3 


4 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


former  prizes  the  institution  as  a  means  of  livelihood 
and  a  source  of  social  and  industrial  power;  the  latter 
is  no  less  keenly  interested,  although  in  a  somewhat  dif¬ 
ferent  way,  and  for  somewhat  different  reasons.  The 
worker  wishes  to  own  his  wages  and  the  things  that  his 
wages  will  buy,  and  he  frequently  desires  to  restrict  the 
social  and  industrial  power  which  ownership  confers 
upon  the  capitalist. 

All  the  efforts  of  revolutionists  and  reformers  for 
the  abolition  or  for  a  reorganization  of  the  system  of 
private  property,  and  all  the  disputes  between  labor  and 
capital  concerning  employment  conditions  and  the  dis¬ 
tribution  of  the  product,  assume  that  there  is  involved 
an  ethical  principle,  a  principle  of  justice.  To  that  su¬ 
preme  principle  all  make  their  final  appeal.  Inasmuch 
as  the  Church  is  the  teacher  and  interpreter  of  morals,  in 
economic  no  less  than  in  the  other  relations  of  life,  her 
doctrine  of  property  is  of  the  highest  importance. 

The  founder  of  Christianity  is  sometimes  represented 
as  a  revolutionist,  a  communist,  or  at  least  as  one  who  did 
not  believe  in  private  property.  No  such  claim  can  be 
substantiated  by  any  fair  study  of  the  Gospels.  Christ 
nowhere  condemned  the  private  ownership  of  goods  as 
unjust  or  unlawful.  Probably  the  nearest  approach  to 
such  a  declaration  is  found  in  His  reply  to  the  rich 
young  man  who  asked  what  he  should  do  in  order  to 
have  life  everlasting.  When  Christ  enumerated  the 
principal  commandments,  the  young  man  replied:  “All 
these  have  I  kept  from  my  youth,  what  is  yet  wanting 
to  me?”  The  answer  of  Jesus  was:  “If  thou  wilt  be  per¬ 
fect,  go  sell  what  thou  hast  and  give  to  the  poor,  ...” 
In  these  statements  Our  Lord  drew  quite  clearly  the 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


5 


distinction  between  what  is  necessary  and  what  is  of 
counsel.  The  young  man  was  not  required  to  divest 
himself  of  his  goods  unless  he  wished  to  be  perfect,  but 
he  was  not  commanded  to  be  perfect.  Moreover,  the 
fact  that  Christ  counseled  the  young  man  to  "sell”  his 
goods,  shows  that  He  did  not  regard  private  ownership 
as  unlawful  in  itself.  Had  He  meant  to  teach  such  a 
doctrine,  He  would  have  required  the  young  man  to 
give  away  his  goods,  not  to  convey  the  title  of  owner¬ 
ship  to  another  by  a  sale.  The  young  man  could  not 
have  sold  what  was  not  his.  Again,  Christ  became  a 
guest  in  the  house  of  the  rich  man,  Zacheus,  and  assured 
him,  "this  day  is  salvation  come  to  this  house.”  Zacheus 
had  said:  "Behold,  Lord,  the  half  of  my  goods  I  give  to 
the  poor.”  Christ  did  not  command  him  to  give  away 
the  other  half  as  a  condition  of  salvation. 

Our  Divine  Lord  did,  indeed,  emphasize  the  dangers 
of  riches  and  denounce  the  rich  in  severe  terms.  "It  is 
easier  for  a  camel  to  pass  through  the  eye  of  a  needle, 
than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven.”  Nevertheless,  He  immediately  added:  "With 
men  this  is  impossible,  but  with  God  all  things  are  pos¬ 
sible.”  The  rich  man  who  had  rejected  the  plea  of  the 
beggar  Lazarus  is  pictured  in  hell.  The  poor  widow  who 
contributed  two  brass  mites  to  the  treasury  is  praised 
above  the  rich  men  who  had  given  of  their  abundance. 

What  Christ  required  was  not  that  men  should  re¬ 
frain  from  calling  external  goods  their  own,  but  that 
they  should  make  a  right  use  of  such  goods.  He  de¬ 
clared  that  salvation  was  come  to  the  house  of  Zacheus 
when  He  heard  that  the  latter  was  in  the  habit  of  giving 
half  of  his  wealth  to  the  poor.  In  His  description  of  the 


6 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


last  judgment  He  promised  heaven  to  those  who  would 
feed  the  hungry,  give  drink  to  the  thirsty,  and  clothe 
the  naked.  These  are  only  a  few  of  the  Gospel  indica¬ 
tions  that  Christ  made  the  right  use  and  the  proper  dis¬ 
tribution  of  private  property  one  of  the  most  binding 
and  important  of  His  commandments. 

There  is  another  element  of  Christ’s  teaching  which 
has  a  very  important  bearing  upon  the  doctrine  of  prop¬ 
erty.  That  is  His  insistence  upon  the  intrinsic  worth 
and  sacredness  of  the  human  individual,  and  the  essen¬ 
tial  equality  of  all  human  persons.  From  the  fact  that 
every  human  being  has  intrinsic  worth,  it  follows  that 
he  has  a  moral  claim  upon  the  common  means  of  life  and 
of  livelihood;  from  the  fact  that  all  persons  are  equal 
in  the  eyes  of  God  and  equally  destined  for  eternal  life, 
it  follows  that  they  have  equal  claims  upon  God’s 
earthly  bounty  for  at  least  the  essentials  of  right  and 
Christian  living.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  Christ  nowhere 
formulated  these  propositions  in  the  terms  just  used; 
nevertheless,  they  are  a  correct  rendering  of  His  teach¬ 
ing  on  these  subjects.  Because  of  this  teaching,  St. 
Paul  could  adjure  Philemon  to  take  back  his  runaway 
slave,  Onesimus,  "not  now  as  a  servant,  but  instead  of 
a  servant  a  most  dear  brother.”  Christ’s  teaching  con¬ 
cerning  the  intrinsic  worth  and  the  essential  equality  of 
all  human  beings  has  important  implications,  not  only 
with  regard  to  spiritual  goods  and  welfare,  but  also 
with  respect  to  all  things  necessary  for  Christian  living, 
including  access  to  material  goods.  These  implications 
have  been  recognized  and  applied  by  the  authorities  of 
the  Church  from  the  beginning  until  the  present  hour. 

The  most  radical  application  of  the  doctrine  of 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


7 


equality  was  made  by  the  first  Christians  of  Jerusalem 
who  sold  their  individual  possessions  and  "had  all  things 
in  common,  .  .  .  and  divided  them  to  all,  according  as 
everyone  had  need.”  This  was  the  Christian  Commu¬ 
nism  which  Socialists  and  other  extremists  sometimes 
point  to  as  exemplifying  the  normal  and  necessary  Chris¬ 
tian  attitude  toward  property.  However,  this  conten¬ 
tion  is  unsound,  for  two  very  good  reasons.  First,  the 
arrangement  was  entirely  voluntary,  as  we  see  from  the 
words  of  St.  Peter  to  Ananias:  "Whilst  it  remained,  did 
it  not  remain  to  thee?  And  after  it  was  sold,  was  it  not 
in  thy  power?”  Here  is  a  clear  indication  that  none  of 
the  early  Christians  was  morally  bound  to  contribute  his 
private  property  to  the  common  store.  In  the  second 
place,  there  is  no  evidence  that  community  of  goods  was 
continued  more  than  a  few  years  among  the  early  Chris¬ 
tians.  Apparently,  it  was  due  to  the  peculiar  conditions 
of  the  faithful  in  Jerusalem,  and  possibly  to  the  first 
fervor  of  new  converts. 

It  is  in  the  writings  of  some  of  the  great  Fathers  of 
the  Church  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries  that  we 
find  the  most  striking  recognition  of  the  claims  of  all 
men  upon  the  bounty  of  the  earth,  and  of  the  obligations 
of  proprietors  to  make  a  right  and  social  use  of  their 
goods.  St.  John  Chrysostom  exclaimed:  "Are  not  the 
earth  and  the  fullness  thereof  the  Lord’s?  If,  therefore, 
our  possessions  are  the  common  gift  of  the  Lord,  they 
belong  also  to  our  fellows;  for  all  the  things  of  the  Lord 
are  common.”  Speaking  to  the  rich  of  his  day,  St.  Basil 
declared:  "That  bread  which  you  keep  belongs  to  the 
hungry;  that  coat  which  you  preserve  in  your  wardrobe, 
to  the  naked;  those  shoes  which  are  rotting  in  your 


8 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


possession,  to  the  barefooted;  that  gold  which  you  have 
hidden  in  the  ground,  to  the  needy.”  According  to  St. 
Augustine:  "The  superfluities  of  the  rich  are  the  neces¬ 
saries  of  the  poor.  They  who  possess  superfluities,  possess 
the  goods  of  others.”  St.  Ambrose  declared  that  God  in¬ 
tended  the  earth  to  be  "the  common  possession  of  all,” 
and  that  "the  earth  belongs  to  all,  not  to  the  rich.”  In 
the  words  of  St.  Gregory  the  Great:  "When  we  give 
necessaries  to  the  needy,  we  do  not  bestow  upon  them 
our  goods;  we  return  to  them  their  own;  we  pay  a  debt 
of  justice,  rather  than  fulfill  a  work  of  mercy.”  St. 
Jerome  quoted  with  approval  a  saying  that  was  common 
in  his  time:  "All  riches  come  from  iniquity,  and  unless 
one  has  lost,  another  cannot  gain.” 

While  very  few  subsequent  writers  or  teachers  of  the 
Church  used  quite  such  strong  language  as  that  just 
quoted,  they  all  taught  the  same  doctrine  in  substance. 
According  to  St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  it  is  right  that 
property  should  be  private  with  respect  to  the  power  of 
acquisition  and  disposal,  but  that  it  should  be  common 
as  regards  its  use;  the  abundance  of  the  rich  belongs  by 
natural  right  to  the  poor;  the  order  of  reason  requires 
that  a  man  should  possess  justly  what  he  owns,  and  use 
it  in  a  proper  manner  for  himself  and  others;  and  finally 
the  man  who  takes  the  goods  of  another  to  save  him¬ 
self  from  starvation  is  not  guilty  of  theft.  When  Car¬ 
dinal  Manning,  some  thirty-five  years  ago,  reiterated  this 
doctrine  of  the  right  of  the  starving  man  to  appropri¬ 
ate  alien  goods  to  save  himself  from  starvation,  he  was 
denounced  as  an  anarchist  by  some  of  the  newspapers 
of  that  day.  These  journals  showed  that  they  were 
ignorant  of  the  traditional  Christian  teaching  of  prop- 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


9 


erty  rights;  they  knew  only  a  false  ethics  of  property. 

According  to  the  Christian  conception,  and  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  law  of  nature  and  of  reason,  the  primary  right 
of  property  is  not  the  right  of  exclusive  control,  but  the 
right  of  use.  In  other  words,  the  common  right  of  use 
is  superior  to  the  private  right  of  ownership.  God  cre¬ 
ated  the  goods  of  the  earth  for  the  sustenance  of  all  the 
people  of  the  earth;  consequently,  the  common  right  of 
all  to  enjoy  these  goods  takes  precedence  of  the  particu¬ 
lar  right  of  any  individual  to  hold  them  as  his  exclusive 
possession.  To  deny  this  subordination  of  the  private 
to  the  common  right,  is  to  assert  in  effect  that  nature 
and  nature’s  God  have  discriminated  against  some  indi¬ 
viduals,  and  in  favor  of  others.  Obviously,  this  asser¬ 
tion  cannot  be  proved  by  any  evidence  drawn  either 
from  revelation  or  from  reason.  The  fact  that  the  State 
sometimes  violates  this  order,  exaggerating  the  privileges 
of  private  owners  to  such  an  extent  as  to  deny  the  com¬ 
mon  right  of  all  the  general  heritage,  merely  shows  that 
the  State  can  sometimes  do  wrong. 

Nevertheless,  this  common  right  of  property,  the 
right  of  use,  is  not  a  sufficient  provision  for  human  wel¬ 
fare.  Men  need  not  only  the  general  opportunity  to  use 
goods,  the  general  right  of  access  to  the  bounty  of  na¬ 
ture,  but  also  the  power  of  holding  some  goods  as  their 
own  continuously.  They  require  the  power  of  exclud¬ 
ing  others  from  interference  with  those  goods  that  they 
call  their  own.  Without  such  a  right  and  such  powers, 
personal  development,  personal  security,  and  adequate 
provision  for  family  life  are  impossible.  All  this  is  evi¬ 
dent  with  regard  to  those  things  which  economists  call 
"consumptive  goods”;  that  is,  those  goods  which  are 


10 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


necessary  for  the  direct  and  immediate  satisfaction  of 
human  wants;  such  as  food,  clothing,  shelter,  household 
furniture,  and  some  means  of  amusement,  recreation, 
and  moral,  religious,  and  intellectual  activities.  The 
necessity  of  private  ownership  in  these  articles  is  not 
denied  by  anyone  today,  not  even  by  Socialists. 

As  the  term  is  ordinarily  understood,  private  owner¬ 
ship  means  more  than  ownership  of  consumptive  goods. 
It  embraces  more  particularly  productive  goods,  the 
natural  and  artificial  means  of  production;  such  as  lands, 
mines,  railroads,  factories,  stores  and  banks.  Today,  all 
these  are  owned  by  private  individuals  or  by  corpora¬ 
tions.  With  regard  to  this  kind  of  private  property,  the 
Catholic  Church,  especially  through  Pope  Leo  XIII  and 
his  successors,  has  laid  down  positive  and  specific  doc¬ 
trine.  Socialism,  that  is,  State  ownership  of  all  the 
means  of  production,  was  condemned  by  Pope  Leo  XIII 
as  detrimental  to  the  working  people  and  to  society,  and 
as  contrary  to  the  natural  rights  of  the  individual.  Ac¬ 
cording  to  the  Catholic  doctrine,  therefore,  the  right 
of  the  individual  or  of  a  group  of  individuals  to  acquire 
and  hold  in  private  ownership  some  of  the  means  of  pro¬ 
duction,  is  in  harmony  with,  and  required  by,  the  moral 
law  of  nature.  The  institution  of  private  ownership, 
even  in  the  means  of  production,  is  declared  to  be  neces¬ 
sary  for  human  welfare.  Therefore,  the  State  would 
injure  human  welfare  and  violate  the  moral  law  if  it 
were  to  abolish  all  private  property  in  the  instruments 
of  production. 

However,  care  must  be  taken  not  to  exaggerate  the 
implications  of  this  doctrine.  All  that  it  asserts  is  that 
the  institution  of  private  property  in  some  of  the  means 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


11 


of  production  is  morally  lawful  and  morally  necessary; 
all  that  it  condemns  is  the  contradictory  system  which 
would  put  the  State  in  the  position  of  owner  and  man¬ 
ager  of  all,  or  practically  all,  natural  and  artificial  capi¬ 
tal. 

Therefore,  the  Catholic  teaching  does  not  condemn 
public  ownership  of  what  are  called  public  utilities,  such 
as  railroads,  telegraphs,  street  railways,  and  lighting  con¬ 
cerns.  It  does  not  even  condemn  public  ownership  of 
one  or  more  of  the  great  instruments  of  production 
which  are  not  included  in  the  field  of  public  utilities. 
For  example,  it  has  nothing  to  say  against  State  owner¬ 
ship  of  mines,  or  State  ownership  of  any  other  particular 
industry  if  this  were  a  necessary  means  of  preventing 
monopolistic  extortion  to  the  great  detriment  of  the 
public  welfare.  Where  the  line  should  be  drawn  be¬ 
tween  State  ownership  of  industries  which  is  morally 
lawful  and  State  ownership  which  encroaches  upon  the 
right  of  private  property,  cannot  be  exactly  described 
beforehand.  The  question  is  entirely  one  of  expediency 
and  human  welfare.  In  any  case,  the  State  is  obliged  to 
respect  the  right  of  the  private  owner  to  compensation 
for  any  of  his  goods  that  may  be  appropriated  to  the  uses 
of  the  public. 

Another  caution  concerns  the  actual  distribution  and 
the  actual  enjoyment  of  private  property.  While  the 
Church  opposes  Socialism,  it  does  not  look  with  favor 
upon  the  restriction  of  capital  ownership  to  a  small 
minority  of  the  population.  Indeed,  the  considerations 
which  move  the  Church  to  oppose  the  Socialist  con¬ 
centration  of  ownership,  are  an  argument  against  a 
concentration  in  the  hands  of  individuals  and  corpora- 


12 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


tions.  Every  argument  which  Pope  Leo  XIII  uses 
against  Socialism  is  virtually  a  plea  for  a  wide  diffusion 
of  capital  ownership.  The  individual  security  and  the 
provision  for  one’s  family  which  a  man  derives  from 
private  property,  are  obviously  benefits  which  it  is  de¬ 
sirable  to  extend  to  the  great  majority  of  the  citizens. 
It  is  not  enough  that  private  ownership  should  be  main¬ 
tained  as  a  social  institution.  The  institution  should  be 
so  managed  and  regulated  that  its  benefits  will  be  di¬ 
rectly  shared  by  the  largest  possible  number  of  indi¬ 
viduals.  Therefore,  Pope  Leo  XIII  declared  explicitly 
that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  State  "to  multiply  property 
owners.” 

Therefore,  those  ultraconservative  beneficiaries  of 
the  present  order  who  see  in  the  Church’s  condemnation 
of  Socialism  approval  of  the  existing  system  with  all  its 
inequities,  are  utterly  mistaken.  They  have  missed  the 
fundamental  principles  and  aims  of  the  Church’s  teach¬ 
ing.  The  Church  advocates  private  ownership  indeed, 
but  she  does  not  defend  the  present  unnatural  and  anti¬ 
social  concentration  of  ownership.  She  is  interested  in 
the  welfare  of  all  the  people,  and  wishes  that  all  should 
share  directly  in  the  benefits  which  private  property  pro¬ 
vides. 

So  much  for  the  right  of  private  ownership.  The 
duties  of  the  proprietor  occupy  a  no  less  important  place 
in  the  Christian  teaching.  In  general,  they  are  a  limita¬ 
tion  upon  the  right  of  property.  The  right  is  exclusive 
as  regards  other  individuals;  that  is  to  say,  it  excludes 
others  than  the  proprietor  from  exercising  the  essential 
control  which  is  conferred  upon  the  proprietor.  As  re¬ 
gards  God,  the  right  of  the  proprietor  is  limited. 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property  13 

Neither  Christian  teaching  nor  sound  philosophy  re¬ 
gards  this  right  as  absolute.  The  private  owner  is  a 
steward  of  his  goods  rather  than  an  irresponsible  mas¬ 
ter.  It  is  from  the  pagan  code  of  Roman  law,  from  the 
virtually  pagan  Code  Napoleon,  and  from  the  unmoral 
and  immoral  principles  of  economic  liberalism  that  has 
arisen  the  pernicious  doctrine  that  "one  may  do  what 
one  pleases  with  one’s  own.”  The  so-called  "right  of 
use  and  abuse”  which  has  obtained  such  wide  currency 
in  industrial  thought  and  practice,  is  in  fundamental 
opposition  to  the  Christian  teaching. 

The  limitations  set  by  that  teaching  to  the  powers 
and  rights  of  the  private  owner  follow  logically  from 
the  Christian  doctrine  concerning  the  common  bounty 
of  nature,  the  common  right  of  access  to  that  bounty, 
and  the  recognition  of  the  right  of  use  as  the  primary 
right  of  property.  Some  of  the  duties  of  the  private 
owner  have  already  been  pointed  out  by  implication  in 
our  discussion  of  the  teaching  of  the  Fathers  of  the 
Church.  In  a  general  way,  the  obligations  of  the  pro¬ 
prietor  with  regard  to  the  right  use  of  his  goods  may  be 
thus  formulated:  He  must  so  use  and  administer  his 
property  that  other  men  shall  enjoy  the  benefit  of  it  on 
just  terms  and  conditions.  Only  thus  can  the  private 
right  of  property  be  reconciled  with  the  superior  com¬ 
mon  right  of  access  to  the  bounty  of  the  earth.  One 
inference  from  the  general  principle  was  drawn  by  St. 
Thomas  Aquinas,  when  he  declared  that  a  man’s  super¬ 
fluous  goods  belong  by  natural  right  to  the  poor.  For 
the  time  and  society  in  which  St.  Thomas  wrote,  this 
was  probably  the  most  important  particular  application 
of  the  principle.  In  the  present  social  and  industrial 


14 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


system,  with  its  immense  aggregations  of  capital  and  its 
enormous  numbers  of  people  whose  livelihood  depends 
upon  their  relation  and  access  to  these  industrial  enter¬ 
prises,  right  use  of  property  and  the  sharing  of  its  bene¬ 
fits  "on  just  terms  and  conditions,”  have  different  and 
far  wider  applications.  Chief  among  these  applications 
is  the  right  of  the  worker  to  a  living  wage,  and  the  right 
of  the  consumer  to  just  prices.  So  much  is  certain. 
Right  use,  reasonable  access  to  the  common  bounty,  and 
participation  in  the  benefits  of  property  on  just  and 
reasonable  conditions,  may  also  require,  and  sometimes 
they  do  require,  the  recognition  of  labor  unions,  shar¬ 
ing  by  the  workers  in  industrial  management  and  in 
profits,  and  the  limitation  of  rates  of  industrial  interest 
by  the  State. 

In  any  case,  the  general  principles  are  clear:  The 
earth  is  intended  by  God  for  all  the  children  of  men; 
individuals  or  corporations  that  have  appropriated  any 
portion  of  the  common  bounty  to  their  exclusive  con¬ 
trol  and  disposition  hold  it  subject  to  this  primary  and 
fundamental  social  purpose;  therefore,  they  are  morally 
obliged  to  administer  it  in  such  a  way  that  all  who  live 
by  it,  or  depend  upon  it,  shall  enjoy  the  economic  oppor¬ 
tunity  of  a  reasonable  and  normal  life. 

Although  Pope  Leo  XIII  condemns  State  ownership 
and  management  of  all  the  instruments  of  production, 
he  did  not  reject  State  regulation  of  private  property. 
On  the  contrary,  he  laid  down  a  principle  which  would 
give  to  the  State  all  the  power  and  authority  which  any 
reasonable  person  could  desire  over  industrial  relations, 
and  for  enforcing  the  limitations  of  ownership:  "When¬ 
ever  the  general  interest  or  any  particular  class  suffers 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


15 


or  is  threatened  with  injury  which  can  in  no  other  way 
be  met  or  prevented,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  public  au¬ 
thority  to  intervene.”  This  principle  would  justify 
legislation  of  many  kinds  for  a  better  use  of  private 
property  and  for  a  wider  distribution  of  its  benefits. 

The  Christian  doctrine  of  property  is  sufficient,  on 
the  one  hand,  to  protect  the  common  interest  and  claims 
of  all  human  beings,  and  on  the  other  hand,  to  safeguard 
all  the  reasonable  rights  of  individual  proprietors.  The 
evils  which  have  existed  and  still  exist  in  connection 
with  private  property  are  not  inherent  in  the  institu¬ 
tion,  as  that  institution  is  understood  and  defended  by 
the  Christian  teaching.  The  most  dangerous  enemies 
of  the  institution  are  neither  the  exponents  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  teaching  nor  the  social  reformer  generally,  but  those 
extreme  upholders  of  the  present  system  who  cling  to  an 
autocratic  and  irresponsible  theory  of  ownership  which 
is  as  inconsistent  with  human  welfare  as  it  is  contrary 
to  the  ideals  of  democracy. 

Supplement  From  Pius  XI’s  "Reconstructing 

the  Social  Order” 

Since  the  above  was  written  we  have  had  Pius  XI’s 
Encyclical,  Reconstructing  the  Social  Order.  Issued 
on  the  fortieth  anniversary  of  Pope  Leo’s  Condition  of 
Labor ,  it  supplemented  that  document  in  several  places. 
Some  of  the  more  pertinent  additions,  simply  of  empha¬ 
sis  or  of  development,  are  placed  at  the  end  of  the  re¬ 
spective  sections  of  this  pamphlet.  (All  quotations  are 
from  the  N.  C.  W.  C.  printing.) 

Superfluous  income — "The  investment  of  super¬ 
fluous  income  in  securing  favorable  opportunities  for 


16 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


employment,  provided  the  labor  employed  produces  re¬ 
sults  which  are  really  useful,  is  to  be  considered,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  teaching  of  the  Angelic  Doctor,  an  act  of 
real  liberality  particularly  appropriate  to  the  needs  of 
our  time”  (p.  18). 

Public  ownership  not  Socialism — "Certain  forms  of 
property  must  be  reserved  to  the  State,  since  they  carry 
with  them  an  opportunity  of  domination  too  great  to  be 
left  to  private  individuals  without  injury  to  the  com¬ 
munity  at  large”  (pp.  3  5,  36). 

Distribution  of  ownership — Unless  the  non-owners 
get  enough  income  to  save  and  rise  to  ownership  and 
actually  do  so,  there  is  no  security  against  revolution 

(pp.  21,22). 

A  distribution  of  income  that  ivill  permit  maximum 
employment — "Social  justice  demands  that  such  a  scale 
of  wages  be  set  up  ...  as  to  offer  to  the  greatest  number 
opportunities  of  employment  and  .  .  .  means  of  liveli¬ 
hood”  (p.  25 ) . 

Price-proportions — Also  "a  reasonable  relationship 
between  prices”  (p.  25). 

Full  production  and  distribution  for  human  needs — 
"Then  only  will  the  economic  and  social  organism  be 
soundly  established  and  attain  its  end,  when  it  secures 
for  all  and  each  those  goods  which  the  wealth  and  re¬ 
sources  of  nature,  technical  achievement,  and  the  social 
organization  of  economic  affairs  can  give.  These  goods 
should  be  sufficient  to  supply  all  needs  and  an  honest 
livelihood,  and  to  uplift  men  to  that  higher  level  of 
prosperity  and  culture  which,  provided  it  be  used  with 
prudence,  is  not  only  no  hindrance  but  is  of  singular 
help  to  virtue”  (p.  2  5). 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


17 


Government  Regulation  of  Property — "Provided 
that  the  natural  and  divine  law  be  observed,  the  public 
authority,  in  view  of  the  common  good,  may  specify 
more  accurately  what  is  licit  and  what  is  illicit  for  prop¬ 
erty  owners  in  the  use  of  their  possessions.  .  .  .  Thus  it 
effectively  prevents  the  possessions  of  private  property, 
intended  by  Nature’s  Author  in  His  Wisdom  for  the 
sustaining  of  human  life,  from  creating  intolerable  bur¬ 
dens  and  so  rushing  to  its  own  destruction”  (p.  17). 


II 


A  SUGGESTED  LIMITATION  OF  CAPITALIST 

PROPERTY2 

Several  of  the  British  and  American  programs  of 
social  reconstruction  published  in  the  years  1918  and 
1919,  called  for  a  change  in  the  laborer’s  status.  Ac¬ 
cording  to  these  publications,  the  laboring  masses  now 
demand  and  require  something  more  than  betterment  of 
their  condition  as  wage  earners.  It  is  not  enough  that 
they  should  enjoy  good  wages,  short  hours,  and  security 
against  the  evils  of  sickness,  accidents,  unemployment 
and  old  age.  Their  position  in  the  industrial  system 
must  include  other  functions  in  addition  to  those  com¬ 
prised  in  the  traditional  concept  of  employees.3 

A  change  in  the  status  of  the  worker  implies  a  change 
in  the  status  of  the  capitalist.  If  the  laborer  becomes 
something  more  than  a  wage  earner,  the  capitalist  must 
give  up  some  of  his  present  power.  He  must  transfer 
to  the  laborer  some  degree  of  control,  of  profits,  or  of 
ownership.  This  paper  deals  only  with  profits. 

The  laborer  should  be  put  in  a  position  to  share  in 
the  surplus  profits  of  industry.  After  standard  wages, 
a  reasonable  rate  of  interest,  adequate  remuneration  of 
management,  and  all  the  other  proper  expenses  of  pro¬ 
duction  have  been  paid,  the  wage  earners  should  share 


2  Reprinted  from  Scientia,  Milan,  Italy,  September,  1922. 

3  Cf.  Social  Reconstruction:  A  General  Review  of  the  Problems 
and  Survey  of  Remedies  (Catholic),  The  Church  and  Social  Recon¬ 
struction  (Protestant) . 


18 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


19 


the  surplus,  not  with  the  owners  of  capital,  but  with 
the  managers  of  the  business.  ''Standard  wages”  means 
compensation  adequate  to  a  decent  living  for  all  em¬ 
ployees,  and  something  more  than  that  for  those  work¬ 
ers  who  have  special  claims  on  account  of  greater  skill, 
hazard,  productivity,  or  any  other  special  factor.  "A 
reasonable  rate  of  interest”  is  the  rate  which  suffices  to 
attract  investment  to  a  given  industry.  When  the  in¬ 
vestor  no  longer  hopes  to  share  in  surplus  profits,  he  re¬ 
quires  an  increase  in  the  rate  of  interest.  Or,  he  de¬ 
mands  dividends  on  a  cumulative  basis.  For  example,  if 
the  prevailing  rate  were  six  per  cent,  and  if  the  stock¬ 
holders  in  a  concern  had  obtained  only  three  per  cent  in 
each  of  the  two  preceding  years,  they  should  receive 
three,  plus  three,  plus  six,  or  twelve  per  cent,  in  the 
current  year.  In  other  words,  the  capitalist  should  be 
guaranteed  an  annual  return  of  six  per  cent.  Until  this 
and  all  the  other  charges  have  been  fully  met  up  to 
date,  there  are  no  surplus  profits.  When  a  surplus  arises, 
it  should  be  distributed  among  all  the  members  of  the 
labor  force  and  of  the  management.  In  a  joint  stock 
company  a  fair  basis  of  distribution  would  seem  to  be 
the  various  salary  rates  and  wage  rates  of  the  partici¬ 
pants,  from  the  president  down  to  the  office  boy.  The 
share  of  each  would  be  proportioned  to  his  regular  wage 
or  salary.  Without  very  great  difficulty,  the  same 
method  could  be  applied  to  individual  businesses  and 
partnerships.  In  any  case  no  part  of  the  surplus  would 
go  to  the  owners  of  capital  as  owners .  Those  who  par¬ 
ticipated  would  do  so  as  workers ,  and  in  proportion  to 
their  productive  importance. 

This  kind  of  profit  sharing  would  vastly  increase  the 


20  The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 

interest  of  the  laborer  in  his  work.  It  would  hold  out 
to  the  rank  and  file  of  the  workers  that  inducement 
which  has  been  mainly  responsible  for  the  initiative,  the 
energy,  the  enterprise  and  the  achievements  of  our  cap¬ 
tains  of  industry.  That  is,  the  hope  of  indefinite  gain, 
unrestricted  by  law,  and  determined  only  by  the  finite 
capacities  of  the  pursuer.  If  this  hope,  this  opportunity, 
has  justified  itself  in  the  achievements  of  the  business 
man,  why  should  it  not  prove  efficacious  in  stimulating 
the  productivity  of  the  masses?  They  have  the  same 
psychology  as  the  directors  of  industry  and  respond  to 
the  same  economic  incentives. 

When  the  power  to  receive  surplus  profits  was 
transferred  from  the  capitalist  to  the  wage  earners  and 
the  management,  it  would  neither  tend  to  retard  pro¬ 
duction  nor  constitute  an  unreasonable  limitation  of 
property  rights.  It  would  be  vastly  more  scientific  and 
more  reasonable  than  the  existing  arrangement.  In  his 
very  suggestive  little  book,  entitled  The  Sickness  of  an 
Acquisitive  Society ,  Mr.  R.  H.  Tawney  observes  that 
the  two  main  purposes,  advantages  and  justifications  of 
property  are  possession  of  the  fruits  of  one’s  labor,  and 
provision  for  the  uncertainties  of  the  future.4  Today, 
however,  a  large  part  of  corporate  property  enables  pro¬ 
prietors  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of  other  persons’  labor,  and 
to  obtain  an  amount  of  insurance  against  the  future 
which  is  unnecessary  and  excessive.  Our  conception  of 
property  has  not  taken  account  of  the  changes  in  the 
functions  of  the  proprietor.  Because  the  small  farmer, 
the  small  shopkeeper,  the  independent  artisan,  obtain 


4  See  especially  the  chapter  on  “Property  and  Creative  Work.” 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


21 


all  the  profits  of  their  businesses,  and  should  obtain  them 
all,  we  have  assumed  that  this  variable  share  should  like¬ 
wise  be  taken  by  the  non-working  stockholder  in  a 
corporation.  We  have  permitted  him  to  obtain  not  only 
the  normal  rate  of  interest  or  dividend,  but  an  addi¬ 
tional  percentage  from  surplus  profits. 

This  practice  can  be  justified  neither  by  logic,  by 
economics  nor  by  human  welfare.  From  the  fact  that 
one  kind  of  property  yields  to  the  owner  profits,  it  does 
not  follow  that  a  very  different  kind  of  property  should 
be  permitted  to  do  the  same.  According  to  the  tradi¬ 
tional  economic  conception,  profits  are  that  residual, 
variable  and  indefinite  share  of  the  product  which  com¬ 
pensates  the  operating  owner,  the  business  man,  for  his 
labor  and  risk.  That  the  active  owner  of  an  individual 
business,  or  the  active  partner  in  a  firm,  should  obtain 
this  share  is  economically  reasonable.  That  the  inactive 
member  of  a  joint  stock  company  should  enjoy  the  same 
advantages,  is  an  empty  assumption;  for  he  performs  no 
labor,  and  he  is  sufficiently  compensated  for  his  risk  by 
his  dividends.  When  he  participates  in  the  profits  he 
does  so  merely  as  owner.  But  his  function  as  owner  has 
already  been  sufficiently  recompensed  in  the  dividends 
that  he  has  received.  In  normal  conditions  the  dividend 
rate  is  an  adequate  inducement  to  saving,  and  to  the 
continuation  of  investment  in  any  particular  concern. 
These  comprise  all  the  functions  of  ownership  which 
call  for  compensation.  Participation  in  the  election  of 
company  officers  is  too  insignificant  and  perfunctory  to 
merit  consideration. 

In  the  present  system,  the  variable  return  called 
profits  goes  to  those  who  do  not  require  it  as  an  induce- 


22 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


ment  to  perform  their  necessary  economic  functions; 
in  the  arrangement  here  proposed,  profits  would  go  to 
those  who  create  them,  and  who  require  them  as  a  stimu¬ 
lus  to  increased  production.  The  disposition  which  so¬ 
ciety  now  makes  of  industrial  profits  is  uneconomic,  un¬ 
scientific  and  inefficient. 

The  existing  practice  is  contrary  to  human  welfare 
because  it  rewards  idle  ownership  at  the  expense  of 
labor.  Aside  from  the  lessened  social  product  which 
results  from  the  encouragement  of  the  former  and  the 
discouragement  of  the  latter,  there  are  the  excessive  re¬ 
wards  obtained  by  the  one  class  and  the  insufficient  re¬ 
wards  given  to  the  other  class. 

In  the  joint  stock  company,  the  functions  of  the  in¬ 
active  stockholder  are  much  more  akin  to  those  of  the 
bondholder  than  they  are  to  those  of  the  active  owner 
of  a  small  business.  Neither  the  stockholder  nor  the 
bondholder  participate  to  any  considerable  degree  in  the 
operations  or  management  of  the  company.  The  main 
difference  between  their  positions  lies  in  the  different 
kinds  of  security  supporting  their  respective  invest¬ 
ments.  While  the  bondholders  have  a  prior  claim,  a 
first  mortgage,  on  the  assets,  the  stockholders  receive  a 
higher  rate  of  interest.  What  is  here  proposed,  then, 
is  that  the  rewards  of  the  stockholder  should  be  brought 
into  harmony  with  his  functions.  Since  his  position 
and  functions  resemble  those  of  the  bondholder,  he 
should  be  compensated  on  that  basis.  He  should  re¬ 
ceive  normal  and  adequate  interest,  but  have  no  part  in 
profits.  In  so  far  as  his  risk  is  greater  than  that  of  the 
bondholder,  it  would  be  fully  met  by  the  higher  rate 
and  the  cumulative  dividends.  In  any  stable  industrial 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


23 


concern,  it  would  be  a  simple  matter  to  fix  such  a  rate 
of  cumulative  dividends  as  to  render  the  stock  quite  as 
attractive  an  investment  as  the  bonds. 

More  fundamental  is  the  objection  that  the  share¬ 
holders  in  the  great  majority  of  stock  companies  do  not 
now,  taking  one  year  with  another,  obtain  from  divi¬ 
dends  and  surplus  profits  combined  more  than  they 
would  get  from  cumulative  dividends  alone;  hence  there 
would  be  no  surplus  profits  to  swell  the  income  of  labor. 
The  reply  is  twofold.  First,  the  objection  does  not  ap¬ 
ply  to  the  largest  and  most  prosperous  concerns.  There 
is  no  reason  why  the  stockholders  in  these  corporations 
should  receive  exceptionally  high  returns;  for  they  have 
produced  neither  the  prosperity  nor  the  unusual  profits. 
In  the  second  place,  it  is  probable  that  the  surplus  profits 
in  all  the  average  concerns  would  have  to  be  produced  in 
the  main  by  labor,  through  the  increased  efficiency  in¬ 
duced  by  the  hope  of  profit  sharing.  Indeed,  this  is  one 
of  the  principal  advantages  of  the  proposed  arrange¬ 
ment. 

Up  to  the  present  we  have  been  considering  the  in¬ 
active  stockholder.  What  about  the  general  officers  and 
the  board  of  directors?  They  are  not  merely  owners; 
they  are  the  active  directors  of  the  business.  For  their 
directive  functions  they  should,  of  course,  receive  ample 
compensation;  but  this  recompense  should  come  to  them 
on  the  basis  of  and  in  proportion  to  these  functions,  not 
according  to  the  amount  of  stock  that  they  happen  to 
own.  The  share  of  the  surplus  profits  which  they  have 
created  is  not  measured  by  their  shares  of  stock,  but  by 
their  managerial  activities.  Hence  there  is  no  reason 
why  they  should  receive  a  higher  rate  of  dividend  than 


24  The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 

the  inactive  stockholders.  As  owners,  they  have  pro¬ 
duced  no  more  than  the  latter.  As  active  directors,  they 
have  played  a  very  important  part  in  the  creation  of 
the  surplus  profits,  and  they  should  be  rewarded  accord¬ 
ingly.  This  would  be  a  more  scientific  method  than  the 
one  now  prevailing;  for  it  would  relate  reward  to  ac¬ 
tivity,  the  effect  to  its  actual  rather  than  its  conventional 
cause. 

At  present  the  officers  of  a  corporation  must  divide 
the  surplus  profits  with  the  inactive  stockholders.  In 
the  system  here  proposed,  they  would  have  to  share  the 
surplus  with  all  the  other  workers.  Whether  their  por¬ 
tion  would  be  greater  or  less  than  they  now  receive, 
would  depend  upon  several  factors:  the  amount  of  stock 
that  they  owned,  the  basis  of  distribution  as  between 
them  and  the  rank  and  file,  and  the  extent  by  which 
the  total  product  would  be  increased.  In  any  case,  the 
profit  share  would  be  determined  by  achievement,  not 
by  mere  ownership;  and  it  would  evoke  the  productive 
effort  that  is  always  aroused  when  rewards  are  placed 
upon  the  former  basis. 

An  important  social  effect  of  the  limitation  of  divi¬ 
dends  would  be  the  discouragement  of  unproductive 
and  anti-social  speculation.  When  the  annual  returns 
on  stock  were  fixed  and  limited,  its  value  would  fluctu¬ 
ate  only  slightly  on  the  stock  exchanges.  It  would  have 
little  attraction  for  the  professional  speculator.  And 
the  owners  would  not  be  tempted  to  interfere  with  the 
management  of  the  business  in  order  to  manipulate  the 
price  of  the  stock.  The  corporation  would  be  operated 
as  a  productive  concern,  not  as  a  means  of  gambling. 

It  may  be  objected  that  the  stockholders,  even  the 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


25 


inactive  majority,  are  ultimately  responsible  for  the  pros¬ 
perity  of  the  concern,  and  for  this  responsibility  should 
receive  some  remuneration.  The  reply  is  that  "respon¬ 
sibility”  has  no  real  meaning  except  in  so  far  as  it  can 
be  expressed  in  terms  of  labor  or  risk.  Now  the  "labor” 
performed  by  the  stockholders  in  selecting  the  officers  is 
practically  nothing,  while  they  are  sufficiently  compen¬ 
sated  for  risks  by  the  higher  rate  of  interest  which  they 
receive,  as  compared  with  the  bondholders. 

Moreover,  it  is  not  necessary,  nor  always  desirable, 
that  the  stockholders  should  continuously  or  annually 
determine  either  the  personnel  of  the  management  or 
the  policies  of  the  company.  Ultimate  and  conditional 
control  would  safeguard  the  interests  of  the  stock¬ 
holders,  and  would  frequently  encourage  greater  indus¬ 
trial  efficiency.  In  the  Dennison  Manufacturing  Com¬ 
pany,  of  Framingham,  Massachusetts,  the  preferred 
shareholders  receive  a  fixed  annual  return  but  no  profits, 
and  so  long  as  the  business  is  reasonably  properous,  they 
have  no  authority  over  the  management.  The  immedi¬ 
ate  control  is  in  the  hands  of  those  managerial  employees 
who  have  been  with  the  company  for  at  least  five  years. 
They  share  the  surplus  profits  with  the  subordinate  em¬ 
ployees.  If  dividends  average  less  than  eight  per  cent 
over  a  period  of  three  years,  the  voting  power  and  the 
control  revert  to  the  owners  of  the  preferred  stock. 
Hence  there  is  always  a  strong  inducement  for  the 
managerial  employees  to  make  the  business  successful. 
In  this  arrangement  not  only  are  rewards  determined  by 
functions,  but  the  operating  function  is  normally  and 
immediately  performed  by  the  most  capable  persons  in 
the  company,  while  the  inactive  stockholders  exercise 


26 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


only  that  conditional  control  which  is  necessary  to  pro¬ 
tect  their  interests  as  owners. 

It  has  been  objected  that  this  separation  of  owner¬ 
ship  from  management  could  not  be  successfully  ef¬ 
fected  in  new  enterprises,  for  two  reasons:  First,  in¬ 
vestors  would  not  readily  subject  their  money  to  a  fixed 
and  limited  rate  of  interest  at  the  outset;  second,  several 
years  would  be  required  to  develop  capable  management. 
These  contentions  have  considerable  force,  but  they  are 
not  unanswerable.  In  some  cases,  the  promoters  of  the 
new  enterprise  might  themselves  undertake  the  responsi¬ 
bility  of  management  for  a  considerable  time.  If  they 
commanded  sufficient  confidence,  they  would  be  able  to 
attract  investors  quite  as  readily  as  they  do  at  present. 
Investors  would  have  the  same  confidence  as  now  in  the 
new  concern,  and  would  accept  cumulative  dividends, 
combined,  if  necessary,  with  a  higher  dividend  rate,  as  a 
substitute  for  surplus  profits  and  continuous  control. 
In  most  cases,  however,  it  would  probably  be  better  to 
defer  the  introduction  of  the  plan  for  a  period  of  ten 
years.  At  the  end  of  that  period,  capable  managers, 
from  top  to  bottom,  would  have  been  trained,  the 
managerial  organization  would  have  been  perfected,  and 
the  competency  of  both  personnel  and  organization 
would  have  become  a  matter  of  public  knowledge.  This 
arrangement  would  meet  both  of  the  aforementioned 
objections:  it  would  give  the  investor  confidence,  and  it 
would  develop  a  competent  management.  The  stock¬ 
holders  could  then  be  reasonably  required  to  surrender 
their  power  of  continuous  control  and  their  receipt  of 
surplus  profits. 

To  the  ignorant,  the  timid  and  the  Tory-minded, 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


27 


the  scheme  here  advocated  will  probably  seem  revolu¬ 
tionary.  To  those  who  are  not  terrorized  by  epithets, 
and  who  are  capable  of  judging  institutions  by  what  they 
do  rather  than  by  what  they  are  called,  it  will  appear 
as  a  moderate  and  logical  development  of  existing  ar¬ 
rangements.  The  most  “revolutionary”  feature,  the 
limitation  of  returns  on  capital,  is  already  contained  in 
the  legal  regulation  of  public  service  corporations,  such 
as  railroads,  street  railways,  lighting  companies,  etc. 
These  corporations  are  practically  restricted  by  law  to  a 
“fair  rate”  of  interest  on  the  invested  capital.  And  the 
courts  of  the  United  States  sometimes  interpret  this  as 
low  as  five  per  cent,  rarely  over  seven  per  cent.  What 
economic  or  ethical  reason  can  be  alleged  for  permitting 
the  investors  in  other  corporations  to  receive  more  than 
an  assured  fair  rate  of  interest? 

Turning  for  a  moment  to  the  moral  aspect  of  the 
proposal,  we  note  that,  in  several  of  the  formal  pro¬ 
nouncements  which  the  authorities  of  the  Catholic 
Church  issued  during  the  nineteenth  century,  tolerating 
interest  on  loans,  it  is  specified  that  the  rate  should  be 
“moderate.”  Moral  theologians  invariably  declare  that 
the  fair  rate  is  a  “moderate”  rate.  Some  of  them  men¬ 
tion  five  per  cent.  Others  define  it  as  “the  rate  prevail¬ 
ing  in  the  open  market.”  If  such  a  rate  is  fair  on  loans, 
it  is  likewise  ethically  sufficient  on  invested  capital,  on 
the  shares  of  stock  in  a  corporation,  plus  an  additional 
percentage  to  meet  the  greater  risk.  In  the  arrangement 
that  we  are  considering,  the  extra  risk  would  be  pro¬ 
tected  by  a  higher  rate  and  by  the  provision  that  the 
dividends  should  be  cumulative. 

In  his  Encyclical,  On  the  Condition  of  Labor,  Pope 


28 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


Leo  XIII  condemns  Socialism  and  strongly  upholds  the 
right  of  private  property.  He  sets  forth  the  advantages 
of  the  latter  briefly  but  comprehensively.  Among  them 
he  does  not  mention  that  of  getting  indefinite  interest 
or  indefinite  profits  from  an  investment.  According 
to  Pope  Leo,  the  institution  of  private  property  is  bene¬ 
ficial  and  necessary  for  three  principal  purposes:  It  en¬ 
ables  the  wage  earner  to  convert  his  wages  into  stable 
goods,  specifically,  land;  it  enables  a  man  to  make  pro¬ 
vision  for  the  needs  of  the  future;  and  it  enables  a  father 
to  bequeath  a  source  of  income  to  his  children.  In  other 
words,  the  great  Pontiff  looks  upon  property  primarily 
as  a  means  of  employment  and  of  livelihood,  as  an  assur¬ 
ance  of  sufficiency  and  security,  not  as  a  source  of  in¬ 
definitely  large  unearned  income.  The  modern  perver¬ 
sion  of  the  property  concept,  the  idea  of  property  as  an 
instrument  of  indefinite  gain,  regardless  of  the  func¬ 
tioning  of  the  owner,  receives  from  the  Pope  not  even 
implicit  recognition.  Indeed,  it  is  condemned  in  the 
single  passage  where  it  seems  to  have  been  considered. 
The  great  Pontiff  denounces  "that  rapacious  usury 
which,  although  more  than  once  condemned  by  the 
Church,  is  nevertheless  under  a  different  guise,  but  with 
the  like  injustice,  still  practiced  by  covetous  and  grasp¬ 
ing  men.” 

The  American  Bishops’  Program  of  Social  Recon¬ 
struction  declares  that  the  principle  of  restricting  in¬ 
vestors  to  a  fair  or  average  return  "should  be  applied  to 
competitive  enterprises,”  as  well  as  to  public  service 
corporations.  "Something  more  than  the  average  rate 
of  return,”  says  this  Program,  "should  be  allowed  to 
men  who  exhibit  exceptional  efficiency.”  This  excep- 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


29 


tional  return  would  be  forthcoming  in  the  form  of  sur¬ 
plus  profits,  and  these  would  be  a  more  accurate  measure 
of  the  manager’s  efficiency  than  the  amount  of  stock 
that  he  happened  to  own. 

Even  the  average,  or  competitive,  rate  of  interest 
cannot  be  demonstrated  as  due  the  capitalist  in  strict 
justice.  The  common  opinion  that  the  productive  serv¬ 
ice  of  capital  creates  such  a  right,  remains  a  more  or  less 
plausible  assumption.  Possibly,  even  probably,  some  in¬ 
terest  is  necessary  in  order  to  evoke  sufficient  saving  for 
an  adequate  supply  of  capital.  That  the  prevailing  rate 
is  necessary  for  this  purpose,  is  the  opinion  of  some,  but 
by  no  means  all,  economists.  That  it  is  certainly  suffi¬ 
cient,  is  denied  by  no  competent  authority. 

The  sum  of  the  matter  is  that  the  proposed  limitation 
of  capitalist  gains  cannot  be  successfully  attacked  from 
the  side  of  either  economics  or  ethics. 

How  can  the  changes  advocated  in  this  paper  be 
brought  about?  The  most  desirable  means  would  be 
voluntary  action  by  the  capitalists,  and  pressure  exerted 
upon  them  by  the  wage  earners.  Unfortunately, 
neither  of  these  methods  is  likely  to  become  effective  in 
the  near  future.  In  the  meantime,  the  perversion  and 
abuse  of  the  powers  of  ownership  will  go  on  increasing 
industrial  friction,  industrial  inefficiency  and  social  in¬ 
jury  and  waste.  In  these  circumstances,  the  State  would 
be  justified  in  establishing  and  enforcing  the  proposed 
arrangement,  at  least,  as  regards  corporations.  For  these 
are  creatures  of  the  State,  and  their  powers  and  func¬ 
tions  can  be  modified  by  the  State.  In  our  country,  this 
result  would  be  more  easily  and  effectively  attained  by 
Congress  than  by  the  State  Legislatures.  All  corpora- 


30  The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 

tions  could  be  required  to  take  out  a  Federal  license  in 
order  to  engage  in  interstate  commerce,  and  the  license 
could  require  the  corporation  to  adopt  and  operate  the 
profit-sharing  plan  advocated  in  these  pages.  Corpora¬ 
tions  that  did  not  ship  their  products  across  State  lines, 
could  not  be  compelled  to  take  out  Federal  licenses,  but 
these  would  be  of  small  importance.  The  proper  rate 
of  return  to  the  stockholders  in  the  various  corporations 
could  be  determined  by  a  Government  commission  of 
experts,  just  as  a  fair  rate  is  now  fixed  by  the  courts  of 
the  United  States  for  public  service  companies.  If  la¬ 
bor  and  management  could  not  agree  upon  the  basis  for 
the  distribution  of  surplus  profits,  the  determination 
could  be  made  by  a  public  agency.  These  are  matters 
of  detail  which  could  be  readily  adjusted,  once  the  prin¬ 
ciple  were  enacted  into  law. 

Supplement  From  Pius  XI’s  "Reconstructing  the 

Social  Order” 

The  Form  of  Private  Ownership — "History  proves 
that  the  right  of  ownership,  like  other  elements  of  so¬ 
cial  life,  is  not  absolutely  rigid,  and  this  doctrine  We 
Ourselves  have  given  utterance  to  on  a  previous  occa¬ 
sion”  (p.  17). 

Profit  Sharing — "The  distribution  of  created  goods 
must  be  brought  into  conformity  with  the  demands  of 
the  common  good  and  social  justice,  for  every  sincere 
observer  is  conscious  that  the  vast  differences  between 
the  few  who  hold  excessive  wealth  and  the  many  who 
live  in  destitution  constitute  a  grave  evil  in  modern  so¬ 
ciety”  (p.  21). 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


31 


"In  the  present  state  of  human  society,  We  deem  it 
advisable  that  the  wage  contract  should,  when  possible, 
be  modified  somewhat  by  a  contract  of  partnership,  as 
is  already  being  tried  in  various  ways  to  the  no  small 
gain  both  of  the  wage  earners  and  of  the  employers. 
In  this  way,  wage  earners  are  made  sharers  in  some  sort 
in  the  ownership,  or  the  management,  or  the  profits” 
(p.  23). 


Ill 

THE  CHURCH  AND  A  BETTER  SOCIAL  ORDER5 


Three  questions  are  raised  by  this  title:  Why  should 
the  Church  take  any  attitude  toward  a  social  or  indus¬ 
trial  system?  What  are  her  lines  of  approach  to  indus¬ 
trial  problems?  What  pronouncements  has  the  Church 
actually  made  concerning  a  better  social  order?  The 
first  is  a  question  of  functions;  the  second,  of  method; 
the  third,  of  doctrines  enunciated  and  deeds  accom¬ 
plished. 

The  attitude  of  the  Church  toward  industry  and  in¬ 
dustrial  relations  is  condemned  from  two  opposite  view¬ 
points.  According  to  one  group  of  critics,  the  Church 
gives  too  much  attention  to  purely  religious  activities, 
such  as  preaching,  religious  worship  and  ceremonies,  the 
administration  of  the  Sacraments,  and  other  spiritual 
functions.  She  does  not  participate  sufficiently  in  the 
controversies  between  capital  and  labor,  nor  show  suffi¬ 
cient  care  for  the  welfare  of  the  weaker  economic  classes, 
nor  contribute  all  that  she  might  to  the  solution  of  in¬ 
dustrial  problems.  Those  who  take  this  view  place  great 
emphasis  upon  the  words  and  deeds  of  Christ  on  behalf 
of  the  poor  and  the  afflicted.  In  their  view,  the  Church 
should  function  mainly  as  an  organization  for  social  re¬ 
form.  These  are  the  social  radicals. 

Another  set  of  critics  maintains  that  the  Church 
goes  beyond  her  sphere  when  she  deals  with  industrial 
conditions,  or  proposes  industrial  reforms.  In  their 

5  Reprinted  from  the  Quarterly  Bulletin  of  the  Meadville  Theo¬ 
logical  School,  April,  1922. 


32 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


33 


opinion,  the  Church  should  confine  herself  entirely  to 
spiritual  matters.  She  has  no  mission  to  discuss  wages, 
or  profits,  or  interest,  or  prices,  or  good  housing,  or  labor 
unions,  or  any  other  industrial  fact,  relation  or  institu¬ 
tion.  These  are  the  social  reactionaries. 

Evidently  both  of  these  groups  are  wrong.  The 
Church  is  not  mainly  an  institution  for  social  or  indus¬ 
trial  reform.  She  was  commissioned  by  Christ  to  save 
souls,  individual  souls,  to  direct  and  assist  men  and 
women  in  attaining  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.  On  the 
other  hand,  she  has  very  much  to  do  with  social  and  in¬ 
dustrial  questions  and  conditions.  Pope  Leo  XIII  de¬ 
clared  that  the  social  question  is  primarily  moral  and  re¬ 
ligious,  not  merely  economic,  and  that  all  the  strivings 
of  men  to  solve  it  will  be  in  vain  if  they  leave  out  the 
Church.  The  reason  is  plain.  In  her  work  of  saving 
souls,  the  Church  must  not  only  teach  men  what  to  be¬ 
lieve,  but  also  direct  them  along  the  way  of  right  con¬ 
duct.  "Faith  without  works  is  dead.”  Men  cannot  save 
their  souls  by  professing  faith  alone;  they  must  also 
practice  righteousness.  "Not  everyone  that  saith  to  Me 
Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  but 
he  that  doeth  the  will  of  My  Father  Who  is  in  Heaven, 
he  shall  enter  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.” 

To  do  the  will  of  the  Father  requires  obedience  to 
every  moral  law.  One  must  do  good  and  avoid  evil  in 
every  field  of  activity.  As  the  supreme  teacher  of 
morals,  the  Church  must  instruct  men  in  the  principles 
of  right  conduct  in  all  the  relations  of  life.  She  must 
teach  men  and  women  not  only  how  to  be  good  fathers, 
mothers,  brothers  and  sisters,  sons  and  daughters,  to  be 
pure  in  their  individual  lives,  to  be  submissive  to  the 


34  The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 

will  of  God,  but  also  to  practice  charity  and  justice  in 
all  their  social  and  industrial  relations.  Charity  and 
justice  are  among  the  most  comprehensive  and  the 
most  important  Christian  virtues.  The  opportunity  to 
observe  them  and  the  temptation  to  disobey  them,  arise 
more  frequently  perhaps  in  the  sphere  of  industry  than 
in  any  other  department  of  conduct.  The  Church  and 
the  moral  law  require  men  to  exemplify  charity  and 
justice  in  buying  and  selling,  in  hiring  and  discharging, 
in  borrowing  and  lending,  in  serving  and  directing,  and 
in  every  other  action  which  they  perform  in  the  world 
of  business  and  industry.  The  theory  that  this  sphere 
of  activity  is  exempt  from  the  moral  law,  or  has  an  in¬ 
dependent  ethics  of  its  own,  finds  no  support  in  right 
reason.  All  industrial  actions  and  relations  are  either 
morally  good  or  morally  bad.  As  such,  they  are  within 
the  immediate  and  proper  province  of  the  Church. 

The  Avenues  of  Approach 

There  are  three  conceivable  ways  in  which  the 
Church  may  speak  and  act  with  relation  to  industrial 
problems.  The  first  has  to  do  with  principles;  the 
second  and  third  with  methods.  As  regards  principles, 
the  Church  deduces  from  the  moral  law  general  rules 
for  the  ethical  Government  of  industrial  relations  and 
institutions.  For  example,  Pope  Leo  XIII  proclaimed 
the  right  of  labor  to  a  living  wage,  the  duty  of  labor  to 
perform  a  fair  day’s  work  and  to  refrain  from  seeking 
its  ends  through  violence,  the  obligation  of  employers 
to  abstain  from  laying  excessive  burdens  upon  their  em¬ 
ployees,  and  from  depriving  them  of  the  opportunity 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


35 


for  religious  worship,  rest  and  recreation,  the  right  of 
the  State  to  intervene  in  industry  in  the  absence  of  other 
means  of  remedying  abuses,  and  a  great  many  other 
specific  rules  and  regulations.  All  these  pronounce¬ 
ments  constitute  applications  of  general  moral  princi¬ 
ples  to  particular  economic  conditions.  In  a  different 
industrial  system,  most  of  these  specific  rules  would  not 
be  pertinent.  In  that  case,  a  different  set  of  particular 
regulations  would  be  drawn  from  the  same  fundamental 
moral  principles. 

The  other  sphere  in  which  the  Church  properly  in¬ 
tervenes  is  that  of  methods  or  proposals  of  social  and  in¬ 
dustrial  reform.  As  in  the  field  of  principles,  so  here, 
the  Church  is  mainly  concerned  with  morals,  with  the 
ethical  aspects  of  proposals  and  measures.  In  this  mat¬ 
ter,  the  authorities  of  the  Church  may  follow  the  first 
of  two  courses,  or  they  may  follow  both.  They  may 
content  themselves  with  pronouncing  moral  judgments 
upon  reform  proposals  and  methods,  or  they  may  go  fur¬ 
ther  and  more  or  less  actively  advocate  the  adoption  of 
such  methods  and  measures  as  they  find  to  be  morally 
good.  For  example,  Pope  Leo  XIII  condemned  the  So¬ 
cialist  organization  of  industrial  society  as  morally 
wrong;  and  he  approved  labor  unions,  joint  boards  of  em¬ 
ployers  and  employees,  and  organizations  for  the  adjust¬ 
ment  of  industrial  disputes.  Incidentally,  one  is 
tempted  to  observe  that  the  condemnation  of  Socialism, 
whether  by  Pope,  Bishop  or  priest,  is  never  criticized  by 
Catholic  business  men,  while  the  approval  of  labor 
unions  is  not  infrequently  complained  of  as  an  im¬ 
proper  "interference  in  business.”  The  Pope  might  have 
declared  that  a  minimum  wage  law  would  or  would  not 


3  6 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


be  a  morally  lawful  method  of  making  effective  the 
living  wage  principle.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  no  Pope 
has  made  any  such  declaration;  but  it  would  represent 
an  entirely  proper  exercise  of  the  Church’s  function  of 
applying  general  principles  of  morality  to  particular 
methods  of  industrial  reform.  To  put  the  case  in  gen¬ 
eral  terms,  the  approval  or  disapproval  of  methods  and 
measures  of  reform  exemplifies  the  particular  applica¬ 
tion  of  the  general  principles  of  industrial  morality.  It 
is  obviously  a  proper  exercise  of  the  moral  authority  and 
functions  of  the  Church. 

The  difference  between  uttering  moral  judgments  in 
approval  of  reform  proposals  and  the  active  advocacy 
of  such  measures,  is  mainly  a  matter  of  emphasis.  Ex¬ 
amples  of  advocacy  are  plentiful  in  the  Encyclical  which 
we  have  been  discussing  of  Pope  Leo  XIII.  He  recom¬ 
mends  the  multiplication  of  property  owners  by  the 
State,  certain  means  by  which  the  State  should  prevent 
strikes,  certain  kinds  of  industrial  associations,  etc.,  etc. 
In  their  Program  of  Social  Reconstruction ,  the  Bishops 
who  constituted  the  Administrative  Committee  of  the 
National  Catholic  War  Council,  advocated  many  specif¬ 
ic  measures,  such  as  a  legal  minimum  wage,  social  in¬ 
surance,  labor  participation  in  management  and  pro¬ 
gressive  taxation  of  incomes  and  inheritances. 

These,  then,  are  the  three  principal  ways  in  which 
the  authorities  of  the  Church  may  properly  make  pro¬ 
nouncements  concerning  business  and  industrial  rela¬ 
tions:  By  applying  the  general  principles  of  morality  to 
particular  economic  practices;  by  passing  judgment 
upon  the  morality  of  particular  methods  or  measures  of 
reform;  and  by  advocating  and  urging  the  adoption  of 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


37 


certain  methods  and  measures.  All  the  great  Encycli¬ 
cals  and  other  declarations  of  the  Popes  on  the  social 
question  exemplify  all  three  of  these  forms  of  "inter¬ 
vention.5’ 

Obviously  the  last  of  the  three  forms  will  not  have 
as  much  official  authority  as  the  first  two,  since  it  in¬ 
volves  questions  of  practical  expediency  as  well  as  the 
question  of  moral  principle.  Nevertheless,  it  is  quite 
natural  and  eminently  desirable  that  the  authorities  of 
the  Church  should  on  opportune  occasions  advocate  par¬ 
ticular  reform  measures  which  they  know  to  be  morally 
right  and  which  they  believe  to  be  actually  expedient. 
It  is  quite  unnatural  and  not  at  all  desirable  that  they 
should  maintain  a  specious  attitude  of  "neutrality.” 

The  Doctrines  and  Achievements 

By  far  the  most  important  statement  of  the  Church 
is  the  Encyclical,  On  the  Condition  of  Labor ,  May  15, 
1891,  by  Pope  Leo  XIII.  At  the  beginning  of  this  docu¬ 
ment,  the  Pope  declared  that  "some  remedy  must  be 
found,  and  found  quickly,  for  the  misery  and  wretched¬ 
ness  pressing  so  heavily  and  unjustly  at  this  moment  on 
the  vast  majority  of  the  working  classes.”  Indeed,  he 
went  so  far  as  to  assert  that  "a  small  number  of  very 
rich  men  have  been  able  to  lay  upon  the  teeming  masses 
of  the  laboring  poor  a  yoke  little  better  than  that  of 
slavery  itself.” 

What  is  the  remedy  for  this  condition?  Not  Social¬ 
ism,  said  Pope  Leo.  A  Socialist  organization  of  indus¬ 
trial  society  would  not  provide  a  better  social  order  "for 
it  would  injure  those  whom  it  is  intended  to  benefit,  it 


38 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


would  be  contrary  to  the  natural  rights  of  mankind,  and 
it  would  introduce  confusion  and  disorder  into  the 
commonwealth.”  Not  by  the  Socialist  theory  of  class 
hostility  and  class  conflict,  but  by  the  Christian  doc¬ 
trine  of  interdependence  and  harmony  between  the  two 
great  industrial  classes,  will  a  better  order  be  established. 
The  members  of  both  the  capitalist  class  and  the  labor¬ 
ing  class  should  realize  that  they  are  all  children  of  a 
common  Father,  and  have  the  same  last  end,  namely, 
God  Himself.  According  to  the  Christian  teaching,  the 
former  must  not  look  upon  their  possessions  as  some¬ 
thing  that  they  can  do  with  as  they  please;  they  must 
use  them  for  the  benefit  of  others,  and  they  must  not 
use  their  employees  "as  mere  instruments  for  making 
money.”  On  their  part,  the  wage  earners  should  realize 
that  the  condition  of  labor  is  nothing  to  be  ashamed 
of,  that  it  has  been  dignified  and  ennobled  by  Christ 
Himself,  and  that  they  are  morally  bound  to  fulfill  all 
the  just  requirements  of  their  labor  contracts.  Such  is 
the  spirit  in  which  the  two  classes  should  regard  their 
respective  positions  and  discharge  their  respective  obli¬ 
gations. 

Space  is  wanting  for  an  adequate  presentation  of 
all  the  important  principles  and  methods  which  Pope 
Leo  recommends  in  this  Encyclical  for  the  creation  of  a 
better  social  order.  We  pass  over  his  pronouncements 
concerning  Sunday  rest,  the  right  of  the  workers  to  rea¬ 
sonable  leisure  and  recreation,  the  evils  of  child  labor, 
the  wrong  of  compelling  women  to  work  at  tasks  un¬ 
fitted  to  their  sex  and  strength,  excessively  long  work¬ 
ing  hours,  and  a  great  number  of  other  employment 
conditions.  We  shall  content  ourselves  with  the  presen- 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


39 


tation  of  four  supremely  important  subjects.  The  first 
concerns  property;  the  second,  wages;  the  third,  labor 
organizations;  the  fourth,  the  industrial  functions  of 
the  State. 

While  Pope  Leo  condemned  common  ownership  of 
property  as  proposed  by  the  Socialists,  he  insisted  that 
individual  ownership  should  not  be  restricted  to  the 
few.  He  expressed  a  desire  for  a  condition  in  which 
the  workingman  would  be  able  to  accumulate  some  pro¬ 
ductive  property.  The  State,  he  said,  should  favor 
ownership,  and  carry  out  a  policy  which  would  induce 
as  many  persons  as  possible  to  become  owners.  He  de¬ 
plored  the  present  concentration  of  ownership  which 
divides  society  into  two  widely  different  classes,  one  of 
which  "holds  the  power  because  it  holds  the  wealth,  has 
in  its  grasp  all  labor  and  trade,  manipulates  for  its  own 
purposes  all  the  sources  of  supply,  and  is  powerfully 
represented  in  the  councils  of  the  State  itself.”  Were 
the  workers  given  a  real  opportunity  to  become  prop¬ 
erty  owners,  "the  gulf  between  vast  wealth  and  deep 
poverty  would  be  bridged,5’  the  amount  of  products 
would  be  greatly  increased,  and  "men  would  cling  to  the 
country  in  which  they  were  born.”  This  view  of  the 
distribution  of  industrial  property  is  far  removed  from 
the  theory  that  is  becoming  alarmingly  widespread 
among  both  the  possessors  and  the  nonpossessors  of  our 
time.  That  is,  the  theory  that  the  instruments  of  pro¬ 
duction  naturally  fall  under  the  ownership  and  opera¬ 
tion  of  a  very  small  proportion  of  the  population,  while 
the  great  majority  can  hope  only  for  good  living  condi¬ 
tions  as  wage  earners  and  industrial  dependents.  Pope 
Leo  realized  fully  the  social  and  industrial  importance 


40 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


of  ownership,  and  the  social  necessity  of  its  wide  and 
general  distribution.  This  doctrine  of  the  great  Pontiff 
is  even  more  vital  and  important  today  than  when  he 
enunciated  it  more  than  thirty  years  ago. 

Concerning  wages,  Pope  Leo  did  not  lay  down  a 
complete  ethical  system.  He  made  no  attempt  to  formu¬ 
late  a  doctrine  on  completely  just  wages.  Instead,  he 
contented  himself  with  the  definition  of  a  single  prin¬ 
ciple  which  is  of  fundamental  significance.  That  is,  the 
principle  of  the  minimum  just  wage,  or  the  living  wage. 
Before  stating  this  principle,  he  repudiated  the  perverted 
doctrine  of  free  contract  as  an  ethical  determinant  of 
wages.  Morally  superior  to  all  human  agreements,  he 
declared,  is  the  dictate  of  the  moral  law  of  nature  that 
remuneration  should  be  sufficient  to  enable  the  wage 
earner  and  his  family  to  live  decent  human  lives.  Here, 
again,  we  have  a  principle  which  is  still  of  surpassing 
importance.  In  every  country  of  the  world,  including 
our  own,  the  wages  of  the  majority  are  below  the  stand¬ 
ard  that  Pope  Leo  declares  to  be  the  minimum  consistent 
with  the  moral  law.  Were  all  the  workers  in  receipt  of 
this  minimum,  the  question  of  higher  rates  of  wages  for 
those  classes  possessing  special  claims  would  be  compara¬ 
tively  easy  of  solution.  If  all  laborers  received  living 
wages,  they  would  have  economic  power  sufficient  to  re¬ 
move  many  of  their  other  disabilities  without  the  neces¬ 
sity  of  recourse  to  the  State.  The  problem  of  a  better 
social  order  would  be  immensely  reduced  and  simpli¬ 
fied. 

The  teaching  of  Pope  Leo  on  labor  organization  is 
likewise  of  vital  importance  today.  In  view  of  the  or¬ 
ganized  assaults  that  have  been  made  in  the  last  three 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


41 


years  on  the  whole  institution  of  labor  unionism,  it  is 
refreshing  and  reassuring  to  recall  the  declaration  of  the 
great  Pontiff,  that  "workmen’s  associations  should  be  so 
organized  and  governed  as  to  furnish  the  best  and  most 
suitable  means  for  attaining  what  is  aimed  at,  that  is  to 
say,  for  helping  each  individual  member  to  better  his 
condition  to  the  utmost,  in  body,  mind  and  property.” 
Here  we  have  a  pronouncement  to  the  effect,  not  only 
that  some  kind  of  labor  unions  are  necessary,  but  that 
the  unions  should  be  effective.  Were  Pope  Leo  alive  to¬ 
day,  he  would  not  be  deceived  by  the  hypocritical  move¬ 
ment  in  favor  of  the  "open  shop.”  He  would  have  no 
difficulty  in  penetrating  the  sham  of  a  labor  union 
which  is  permitted  to  exist,  but  not  to  function. 

On  a  preceding  page  we  quoted  the  far-reaching 
principle  which  Pope  Leo  proclaimed  concerning  the  in¬ 
dustrial  functions  of  the  State.  We  noticed  it  there  in 
relation  to  the  regulation  of  industrial  property.  It  is 
at  least  of  equally  great  importance  for  employment  re¬ 
lations  and  the  condition  of  the  workers.  Among  the 
events  and  situations  in  which  the  State  should  intervene 
for  the  benefit  of  the  laboring  population  are  strikes, 
employment  conditions  which  are  injurious  to  family 
life,  to  morals,  or  to  the  practice  of  religion,  burdens 
which  are  degrading  to  the  dignity  of  the  workers  as 
human  beings,  and  tasks  detrimental  to  health  or  un¬ 
suited  to  sex  or  age.  Just  as  the  Pope’s  commendation 
of  effective  labor  unions  is  in  healthy  contrast  to  the 
insincere  nonsense  preached  today  on  that  subject,  so  is 
his  declaration  in  favor  of  what  is,  in  reality,  and  in 
the  best  sense,  class  legislation.  In  his  doctrine  on  State 
assistance,  the  poor  and  helpless  have  a  claim  to  special 


42 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


consideration.  "'The  richer  population  have  many  ways 
of  protecting  themselves,  and  stand  less  in  need  of  help 
from  the  State;  those  who  are  badly  off  have  no  re¬ 
sources  of  their  own  to  fall  back  upon,  and  must  chiefly 
rely  upon  the  assistance  of  the  State.  It  is  for  this  rea¬ 
son  that  wage  earners,  who  are  undoubtedly  among  the 
weak  and  necessitous,  should  be  specially  cared  for  and 
protected  by  the  commonwealth.”  To  those  who  try  to 
analyze  things  as  they  are,  rather  than  to  accept  and 
repeat  formulas  and  catchwords,  this  doctrine  will  ap¬ 
pear  as  obvious  reason  and  common  sense.  Inasmuch 
as  different  economic  classes  have  different  needs,  they 
must  be  treated  differently  by  the  State  if  they  are  to  be 
treated  justly.  Hence  the  essential  soundness  of  well- 
considered  class  legislation.  Not  until  our  lawmakers 
frankly  and  intelligently  accept  this  principle,  will  they 
be  able  to  adopt  a  consistent  and  effective  program  of 
State  intervention  in  the  relations  between  capital  and 
labor. 

The  most  interesting  and  specific  pronouncements 
of  religious  bodies  concerning  a  better  social  order  are  to 
be  found  in  the  various  programs  of  social  and  indus¬ 
trial  reconstruction  composed  and  published  by  them 
since  the  close  of  the  Great  War.  All  these  statements 
were  issued  at  a  time  when  the  social  idealism  generated 
by  the  war  was  still  alive  and  impelling.  Chief  among 
these  pronouncements  are  Social  Preconstruction ;  a  Gen¬ 
eral  Review  of  the  Problems  and  Survey  of  Remedies 
(January,  1919),  by  the  Administrative  Committee  of 
the  National  Catholic  War  Council;  A  Christian  Social 
Crusade  (1918),  by  the  British  Interdenominational 
Conference  of  Social  Service  Unions;  The  Church  and 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


43 


Social  Reconstruction  (May,  1919),  by  the  Commission 
on  the  Church  and  Social  Service  of  the  Federal  Coun¬ 
cil  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America;  Report  on 
Christianity  and  Industrial  Problems  (1918),  by  the 
Archbishops’  Fifth  Committee  of  the  Church  of  Eng¬ 
land;  The  Church  and  Industrial  Reconstruction 
(1920),  by  the  Committee  on  the  War  and  the  Re¬ 
ligious  Outlook;  and  Social  Justice  Program  of  the  Cen¬ 
tral  Conference  of  American  Rabbis  (1920). 

While  these  statements  exhibit,  as  we  might  expect, 
a  considerable  amount  of  diversity  both  as  regards  sub¬ 
ject  matter  and  emphasis,  they  also  show  a  great  meas¬ 
ure  of  agreement.  Their  main  proposals  may  be  sum¬ 
marized  under  the  head  of  Sufficiency,  Security,  and 
Status. 

Sufficiency  may  be  taken  to  indicate  the  sum  total 
of  goods  and  opportunities,  as  regards  both  labor  con¬ 
ditions  and  living  conditions,  which  are  necessary  to 
safeguard  the  welfare  of  the  working  classes  from  day 
to  day.  It  has  reference  only  to  the  present.  Its  chief 
elements  may  be  comprised  under  wages,  working  hours, 
safety  and  sanitation,  labor  unions,  child  labor  and  arbi¬ 
tration.  Most  of  the  reconstruction  programs  have 
dealt  with  several  of  these  subjects.  The  Bishops’  Pro¬ 
gram  called  for  the  enactment  of  minimum  wage  laws 
which  would  provide  remuneration  at  least  sufficient 
for  the  proper  maintenance  of  a  family  in  the  case  of 
male  adults,  and  adequate  to  the  decent  individual  sup¬ 
port  of  female  workers.  According  to  the  authors  of 
this  document,  the  general  level  of  wages  in  the  United 
States  at  the  close  of  the  war  should  have  been  main¬ 
tained,  even  though  the  cost  of  living  declined  moder- 


44 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


ately.  The  Bishops  also  expressed  themselves  in  favor 
of  a  national  child  labor  law,  labor  unions  and  perfectly 
free  collective  bargaining,  municipal  housing,  a  na¬ 
tional  unemployment  service,  and  a  national  labor  board 
for  the  adjustment  of  industrial  disputes  upon  the  basis 
of  a  code  of  industrial  principles  and  rights  similar  to 
that  which  guided  the  National  War  Labor  Board.  The 
Federal  Council  of  Churches  declared  that  a  living  wage 
should  be  the  first  charge  upon  industry,  to  be  paid  be¬ 
fore  dividends  are  considered,  and  approved  the  pro¬ 
posal  of  the  British  Quaker  employers  for  a  division  of 
the  industrial  surplus,  between  the  workers  and  the  con¬ 
sumers.  The  Central  Conference  of  Jewish  Rabbis 
recognized  the  right  of  labor  to  organize  and  to  bargain 
collectively  through  representatives  of  its  own  choosing. 

Security  has  reference  to  the  future.  It  can  be  pro¬ 
vided  mainly  through  the  legal  measures  denoted  by  the 
term  "social  insurance.”  Under  this  phrase  is  included 
insurance  against  all  sorts  of  sickness  and  accidents,  un¬ 
employment,  invalidity  and  old  age.  The  social  recon¬ 
struction  program  of  the  Catholic  Bishops,  the  program 
of  the  Federal  Council  of  Churches  and  several  of  the 
pronouncements  of  other  denominations  favor  these 
forms  of  protection  for  the  working  classes.  Another 
kind  of  security  for  the  great  masses  of  the  laboring 
people  is  a  system  of  vocational  or  industrial  training. 
The  Catholic  program  and  several  of  the  non-Catholic 
programs  advocate  this  institution. 

Status  has  to  do,  not  so  much  with  the  present  liveli¬ 
hood  or  the  future  security  of  the  wage  earner,  as  with 
his  position  in  the  industrial  system.  As  just  summar¬ 
ized,  the  benefits  of  sufficiency  and  security  might  con- 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property  45 

ceivably  be  all  that  the  working  population  requires  for 
right  living  and  adequate  opportunity  of  self-improve¬ 
ment.  There  is,  however,  grave  reason  to  doubt  the 
correctness  of  this  theory.  In  a  political  democracy,  it 
is  not  at  all  certain  that  an  industrial  autocracy  can,  or 
ought  to,  survive  permanently.  The  best  interests  of 
the  wage-earning  classes,  and  of  society  generally,  seem 
to  demand  that  wage  earners  should  be  something  more 
than  wage  earners.  They  ought  to  have  some  share  in, 
and  responsibility  for,  the  operation  and  the  ownership 
of  industry.  Only  in  such  a  social  organization  can  the 
more  extreme  dangers  of  class  conflicts  be  removed,  and 
the  working  classes  obtain  opportunity  for  the  full  de¬ 
velopment  of  all  their  faculties.  Hence  we  find  the  so¬ 
cial  reconstruction  programs  of  the  Catholic  Bishops 
and  of  the  Federal  Council  of  Churches  advocating  la¬ 
bor  participation  in  industrial  management.  The  first 
of  these  documents  goes  further,  and  declares  that  the 
majority  of  the  workers  should  become  owners,  at  least 
in  part,  of  the  instruments  of  production,  through  co¬ 
operative  enterprises  and  copartnership  arrangements. 
Other  programs  call  for  workers’  sharing  in  the  surplus 
profits  of  industry. 

In  addition  to  those  proposals  and  measures  which 
have  a  direct  bearing  upon  the  condition  of  labor  and 
the  relations  between  employer  and  employee,  certain 
other  industrial  recommendations  are  found  in  some  of 
the  reconstruction  programs  formulated  by  the 
churches.  The  Catholic  Bishops’  pronouncement  has 
some  strong  sentences  concerning  the  extortionate  prac¬ 
tices  of  monopolies,  going  so  far  as  to  suggest  govern¬ 
ment  competition  with  monopolistic  concerns  which 


4  6 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


cannot  be  adequately  regulated  by  any  other  method. 
This  document  also  recommends  heavy  taxation  of  in¬ 
comes,  excess  profits  and  inheritances. 

Such,  in  summary  and  inadequate  language,  are  the 
principal  pronouncements  of  the  religious  forces  of  our 
time  concerning  a  better  social  order.  Not  all  social 
students  will  agree  as  to  the  efficacy  of  the  proposals, 
but  no  one  can  fairly  deny  that  they  represent  serious, 
intelligent  and  systematic  efforts  to  apply  the  principles 
of  Christian  morality  to  the  reform  of  industrial  abuses. 
The  principal  contribution  which  religious  bodies  can 
henceforth  make  to  the  attainment  of  a  better  social 
order  will  not  be  the  formulation  of  new  programs  or 
new  proposals,  but  the  continuous  and  specific  applica¬ 
tion  of  the  principles  and  proposals  already  adopted. 
This  is  by  far  a  greater  and  more  perilous  task  than  that 
which  has  already  been  accomplished.  Nevertheless,  it 
will  have  to  be  frankly  faced  and  courageously  assumed 
if  the  Church  is  to  discharge  her  function  of  moralizing 
industrial  practices  and  institutions.  It  is  now  uni¬ 
versally  recognized  that  the  Church  did  achieve  this  re¬ 
sult  in  the  Middle  Ages,  and  there  is  no  fundamental 
reason  why  she  should  not  repeat  that  achievement  in 
our  day.  "The  arm  of  God  is  not  shortened.” 

Supplement  From  Pius  XI’s  "Reconstructing 

the  Social  Order” 

The  title  of  the  whole  Encyclical  is  taken  from  the 
section  which  describes  an  economic  order  which  is  to  be 
restored  and  that  is  to  take  the  place  of  both  Individual¬ 
ism  and  the  new  private  economic  dictatorship  which 
the  Encyclical  says  has  succeeded  to  competition. 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


47 


In  summary,  this  economic  order  is  a  system  of  eco¬ 
nomic  self-government  by  organized  industries  and  pro¬ 
fessions,  thus:  (a)  The  industries  and  professions  ("One 
and  the  same  group  joining  forces  to  produce  goods  or 
give  service”) ;  (b)  Organized  ("Associations”) ;  (c) 
"Autonomous” ;  (d)  Interrelated  ("All  groups  should 
unite”) . 

Within  the  organized  industry  and  profession  there 
are  to  be  free  organizations  for  the  separate  classes  or 
other  subdivisions,  thus:  "Free  to  institute  unions;  the 
same  .  .  .  beyond  the  limits  of  a  single  trade  [/.  e.,  indus¬ 
try  or  profession].”  These  are  to  have  rights  of  "sepa¬ 
rate  deliberation  and  separate  vote.”  Collective  bar¬ 
gaining  can  and  must  be  an  approach  to  this  system. 

The  precedent  seems  to  be  the  guild  system,  but  not 
a  precedent  to  be  slavishly  imitated  (and  certainly  not 
as  to  a  return  to  artisanship  which  was  merely  the  tech¬ 
nique  of  an  earlier  time),  thus:  "At  one  period  existed 
a  social  order  which  corresponded  in  a  certain  measure 
to  right  reason.”  Organization  by  industries  and  pro¬ 
fessions  is,  the  Encyclical  says,  "considered  by  many  if 
not  essential  at  least  natural  to  human  society.” 

The  "guild”  decides  its  own  form  of  organization 
so  long  as  the  end  is  thereby  obtainable;  but  government 
should  help  their  establishment,  and  once  they  are  es¬ 
tablished  the  government  should  continue  "directing, 
watching,  stimulating,  restraining”  according  to  needs. 

The  function  is  primarily  that  of  "directing  the  ac¬ 
tivities”  of  the  industry  or  profession  "to  the  common 
good”;  and  the  common  good,  or  the  general  welfare, 
is  the  aim  of  the  virtue  of  social  justice.  The  wide  range 
of  social  justice  is  partly  indicated  in  sections  II  and 


48 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Property 


III  of  this  publication.  It  will  take  the  place  of  Indi¬ 
vidualism,  since  "the  proper  ordering  of  economic  af¬ 
fairs  cannot  be  left  to  competition”;  and  also  of  the  new 
private  dictatorship  of  wealth,  of  control  of  invested 
funds  and  of  credit  power,  which  "still  less”  can  properly 
order  economic  life. 

It  will  ward  off  excessive  governmentalism  by  estab¬ 
lishing,  even  while  keeping  the  sovereignty  of  Govern¬ 
ment,  a  division  of  powers  between  an  organized  eco¬ 
nomic  self-government  and  political  government.  It 
will  cure  the  class  struggle  by  "binding  men  together 
according  to  their  diverse  functions  .  .  .  (for)  the  com¬ 
mon  good.”  It  is  also  extensible  to  the  international 
field.  It  is  a  combined  "social,”  i.  e .,  economic,  and 
"juridical,”  /.  e.,  governmental,  order. 

To  emphasize  the  unity  of  this  form  of  economic 
system  the  Encyclical  quotes  Paul  to  the  Ephesians  on 
the  Mystical  Body  of  Christ.  "The  whole  body,  being 
compacted  and  fitly  joined  together,  by  what  every 
joint  supplieth,  according  to  the  operation  in  the  meas¬ 
ure  of  every  part,  maketh  increase  of  the  body,  unto  the 
edifying  of  itself  in  charity”  (Eph.  iv,  16). 

To  be  truly  effective,  "social  justice  must  build”  it. 
Social  charity  is,  as  it  were,  its  soul.  As  necessities  for  its 
existence,  the  Encyclical  enumerates:  "Blessing  of  God 
.  .  .  cooperation  of  all  men  of  good  will  .  .  .  contribution 
of  technical,  commercial  and  social  competence;  and  of 
Catholic  principles  .  .  .  through  Our  sons  whom  Cath¬ 
olic  Action  imbues  and  trains.” 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Libraries 


363  4417 


012  0 

Study  these  excellent  pampniets  ana  watch  for  neu 
which  we  will  publish  shortly  on  Communism! 


lippil 

iiliiiiliiliilliii 
liSHHHayi!!!! . 

••■iiiihiijljljiiliiiiitiiiiiliiiiii 


.■■it  tiff  v. ..  . 


A  CATECHISM  OF  COMMUNISM  FOR 
CATHOLIC  HIGH  SCHOOL  STUDENTS 

A  PASS  I  ON  I  ST  FATHER 


JUST  WHAT  IS  COMMUNISM? 

REV.  RAYMOND  T.  FEELY,  S.J. 


COMMUNISM  AND  MORALS 

(formerly  titled  “Morals  and  Moscow") 

REV.  RAYMOND  T.  FEELY,  S.J. 


. TH::; 

;  ikk  HS  irii 

••  . .  . . . 

h-  ■  i;':  ■ 

•  '  •  SU»| 

:::  :::: ; 

■  -  ;  .  •; 

:■ . :  v  ■  ; 

aSK* 

.  2::  :: 


. . 

•••••'  it::::::::;: . 

•wiiiiiMiiiiiiifejil!;;;;:!!’!..., 


FASCISM,  COMMUNISM,  THE  U. 

REV.  RAYMOND  T.  FEELY,  S.J. 


S.  A. 


!!®ss! 


THE  TACTICS  OF  COMMUNISM 

RT.  REV.  MSGR.  FULTON  J.  SHEEN,  Ph.D. 


"ililiir-niiwiHii  iiiiiiiHx:  IHHiilii 
•  •*:::•*  -  :•  ::::  •:  ;!:ii 


LIBERTY  UNDER  COMMUNISM 

RT.  REV.  MSGR.  FULTON  J.  SHEEN,  Ph.D. 


::  •' 


COMMUNISM  ANSWERS  QUESTIONS 
OF  A  COMMUNIST 

RT.  REV.  MSGR.  FULTON  J.  SHEEN,  Ph.D. 


COMMUNISM  AND  RELIGION 

RT.  REV.  MSGR.  FULTON  J.  SHEEN,  Ph.D. 


SPAIN'S  STRUGGLE  AGAINST  ANARCHISA 


AND  COMMUNISM 

REV.  GENADIUS  DIEZ,  O.S.B. 


5  cents  each,  $3.50  the  100,  $30.00  the  1,000,  carriage 


liililplill 

SsMSifcitfffi 


THE  PAULIST  PRESS  -  401  West  59th  Street  -  New  York, 


